Friday, July 27, 2007

Crush Liberalism's new home!

No more having to remember ".blogspot.com" or even the new destination of ".wordpress.com"! If you don't update your bookmarks, that's OK, since you can just click on the link in this post to whisk you away to my more lush accommodations!

I'll probably be experimenting with different color and image schemes over the next few days, but aside from that, everything is ready to roll, so comment away!

PROS: New layout, new commenting mechanism (i.e. NO HALOSCAN!), better reliability that both Blogger and Haloscan, easier to remember domain name...what's not to like?

CONS: Only one, really, that I can think of: the Haloscan comments from prior posts can't import. They'll still be here at Blogger for posterity, if you just really want to see what you or someone else has said over the last three years. Then again, who wouldn't want to occasionally take a walk down Memory Lane and see the punking that navywife and her ilk received? :-D

Thursday, July 26, 2007

UPDATE: Changes coming soon

Haloscan sucks. Period. If you leave a comment, you may get a message telling you "The service is unavailable" or something to that effect. It's been happening a lot lately (along with other problems from a moderator's view) that are just unacceptable. So, I've finally had it.

I will be spending some time reviewing other commenting mechanisms before settling on one. I may even move this blog to Wordpress, and kill two birds with one stone (Blogger and Haloscan). Either way, I'm fed up with this. It's often frustrating enough to make me want to give this blogging thing up altogether.

UPDATE (7/26/2007 - 11:04 A.M. EST): I am sooooooooo at Wordpress! Once I figure out how to import the Haloscan comments to Wordpress, then Blogger will go the way of the Whig Party. Once that happens, I'll put a redirect here so you won't have to update your bookmarks.

UPDATE (7/26/2007 - 01:52 P.M. EST): After a lot of research, it looks like there is no easy way to import Haloscan comments into Wordpress. However, I think I'm going to leave this blog in place here on Blogger so folks can access prior comments if they want to. Rest assured, though, that every post I've ever made is now at Wordpress (just without the comments, that's all). Basically, in the next day or two, you'll see a post here with a link to Crush Liberalism's new home. Stay tuned! :-)

UPDATE (7/27/2007 - 08:32 A.M. EST): The domain has been registered, DNS settings are propagating, etc. In non-techie speak, that means I should be up and running today (possibly before lunch). STAY TUNED!

Tuesday, July 24, 2007

Today's "Damn that global 'warming'" update

The 2007 hurricane season may be less severe than forecast due to cooler-than-expected water temperatures in the tropical Atlantic, private forecaster WSI Corp said on Tuesday.

The season will bring 14 named storms, of which six will become hurricanes and three will become major hurricanes, WSI said in its revised outlook. WSI had previously expected 15 named storms of which eight would become hurricanes and four would become major hurricanes.

"Because the ocean temperatures have not yet rebounded from the significant drop in late spring, we have decided to reduce our forecast numbers slightly," said Todd Crawford, a WSI seasonal forecaster....Despite the downgraded forecast, WSI still expects the 2007 season to be more active than last year, and added that storm-weary parts of the Gulf Coast could still be hit.

"We feel the general threat to the western Gulf is reduced slightly, with a corresponding increase in the threat to the eastern Gulf and Florida," Crawford said.

Let's see: after a busy 2005 hurricane season (blamed by various nutbars, including the Goreacle, on global "warming"), we were told 2006 would be just as busy as 2005. We got nothing, especially here in Florida. Then we were told that 2007 would be busy, and now we're being told that due to (** snicker **)colder than expected temperatures, 2007 is being revised downward.

Three exit questions: (1) At what point can we stop referring to these people as "experts"? (2) How have these shysters managed to convince people to keep paying them for their chronically wrong forecasts? (3) Considering that this has been an unseasonably cool year (some might say it's a cool cycle?), can we please get off the Chicken Littleism that the treehuggers have been spewing our way?

Ward Churchill fired, MSM carries his water

U of C’s president recommended that they fire him — for plagiarism and fabricating data, remember, not for his politics — back on May 30 so it’s a fait accompli that the axe will fall. In so doing, the university rids itself of a PR disaster and “Chutch” finally gets the role he was born to play, that of the truth-speaking “brown person” whose dissent the man just can’t handle. Win/win. ...Update: The school president and head of the board of regents went out of their way afterwards to emphasize that it was his ethical lapses that sunk him, not his political views. The AP headline: “Professor fired for 9/11-Nazi comparison.”

Shrillary the "moderate" to attend nutroots convention

Spurning the "centrist" (in name, anyway) Democratic Leadership Council that her hubby was a part of, Her Highness is aligning herself with the Kos kooks by going to their annual tinfoil fest. From Michelle Malkin:

Hillary is worried about her left flank. How worried? She has made a decision to allow her communications director to go on The O’Reilly Factor tonight to defend Hillary’s upcoming appearance at the Yearly Kos convention....Live by the nutroots, die by the nutroots. Hillary has proved a dumb investor before. Cattle futures, anyone?

It’s only a matter of time before she discovers how unwise her netroots investment is. Tinfoil, anyone?

Quote of the day

I wasn't kidding when I said that Silky Pony is a cornucopia of material. If it's not a $1200 'do or the cover of Esquire as "Sexiest Woman Alive" (or at least, close enough to the label to warrant a double-take), it's stuff like this:

At the CNN/YouTube Democratic debate Monday night, each candidate had to turn and say something about the man or woman to his or her left. Former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) had this to say about the woman who spent eight years in the White House: “I admire what Sen. Clinton has done for America, what her husband did for America,” he said, facing Hillary Rodham Clinton. And then came the potshot: “Um, I’m not sure about that coat.”

New host for "The Price is Right"

Fortunately, Rosie O'Qaeda wasn't chosen to replace Bob Barker. However, it looks like Drew Carey is going to be the guy. Bob Barker is said to be pleased with the choice, so if it's good enough for Bob AND it's not Rosie O, then it's good enough for me.

"Democrats Seek Session With Bush on Spending"

Isn't that sort of like wanting to meet with Ted Kennedy on sobriety? Anywho, from the Old Gray Hag:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, have asked for a meeting with President Bush to see if they can work out an agreement on spending bills for the fiscal year that begins in 10 weeks. But lawmakers from both parties said they saw no obvious way to overcome the current stalemate with the White House.

The House has passed 8 of the 12 regular appropriations bills for 2008, and Mr. Bush threatened to veto 5 of them, on the ground that they called for “an irresponsible and excessive level of spending.” ...James P. Manley, a spokesman for Mr. Reid, said, “The president is playing to his conservative base, trying to pick a fight with Congress over spending policies.”

It's a darned shame that Bush didn't have that same commitment to fiscal discipline when his party was running the show. Who knows? They may still have power today if it weren't for their "drunken sailor" spending ways.

Monday, July 23, 2007

Kos kooks are...moderate?

Sometimes when you see NPR's Juan Williams on Fox News, you are left scratching your head wondering what planet he lives on, and what the color of the sky is there.

Such questions must certainly have been raised in the minds of right-thinking "Fox News Sunday" viewers this morning when Williams suggested that the liberal blog Daily Kos "is now center."

I kid you not.

What precipitated this extraordinary lapse of reason on Williams' part was a rather accurate observation made by the Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol concerning Democrat presidential candidates attending the upcoming YearlyKos convention.

Every Democratic presidential nominee is going to the Daily Kos convention. That's the left-wing blogger who was not respectable three or four years ago. The Howard Dean kind of sponsor. Now the whole party is going to pay court to him and to left wing blogs. Not a single one is going to the Democratic Leadership Council meeting in a couple of weeks. That's the organization that Bill Clinton was head of in the early '90s - that was supposed to be the new, more moderate Democratic Party. The Democratic Party has gone left and it will hurt them in 2008.

Makes sense, right? After all, the DLC was indeed crucial for Clinton's success in the '90s. Yet, the past two Democrat presidential candidates have shied away from this group, and its tenets, moving further to the left, and not winning their respective elections.

With this in mind, it seems quite reasonable to suggest that Democrat presidential candidates who follow Al Gore and John Kerry's leftist playbook rather than the successful, though disingenuous, moderate campaign of Bill Clinton will have a hard time winning in the general election.

Not so surprisingly, Williams saw things differently:

What you described as left is now center. The majority of the American people, 70 percent, want us out of Iraq. In fact, if you asked Iraqis, 60 some percent of Iraqis say we're doing more harm than good in Iraq. There's a center here and I think what you're saying is they're playing somehow to the left.

Even if the only issue on voters' minds was Iraq, Williams' point would be way off base....In fact, CBSNews.com's article on this poll stated that "Sixty-one percent of Americans surveyed think the war should be funded only if there's a timetable for withdrawal...while 8 percent think all funding for the war should be blocked, no matter what."

The Kossacks are part of that 8 percent who want funding blocked now no matter what.

Therefore, even on this one issue, it is specious of Williams to suggest that the folks at Daily Kos are either in the center or representative of the majority view.

A federal appeals court has ordered Shell Oil to stop its exploratory drilling program off the north coast of Alaska at least until a hearing in August.

The order, issued Thursday by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, comes after the federal Minerals Management Service in February approved Shell's offshore exploration plan for the Beaufort Sea.

"Vessels currently located in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas shall cease all operations performed in furtherance of that program, but need not depart the area," the order said.

Opponents contend that the Minerals Management Service approved Shell's plan without fully considering that a large spill would harm marine mammals, including bowhead and beluga whales. They say polar bears could also be harmed, and they question whether cleaning up a sizable spill would even be possible in the icy waters.

A hearing is planned for mid August in San Francisco to decided if Shell can go forward and provide us with some oil, after bidding $39 million for the offshore leases, and blowing who knows how much on court costs.

If not, no problem: we can just keep paying through the nose to buy oil from Arabs, who will spend the proceeds on madrasahs and weapons programs. Hopefully the polar bears and beluga whales will appreciate it.

Daily humor

Blue state lunacy, criminal alien edition

Spring Valley, Mayor George Darden won't be facing state civil or criminal charges for hiring illegal aliens to work on an urban revitalization project in his village, but Department of Labor officials informed him yesterday that the $10 an hour he paid 10 men doesn't comply with the state's prevailing wage law and taxpayers will have to pay the illegals the difference of about $30 an hour.

Darden has been under fire this week since the White Plains Journal News reported a village employee from the Department of Public Works Tuesday using a village truck to pick up two day laborers from a popular roadside hiring site and driving them back to Main Street to clean out a building slated for demolition. The village employee said he was "following orders" when he transported the illegal aliens. ...Darden acknowledged paying the men in cash. At a Tuesday news conference, he did not say whether taxes were withheld on their wages.

"To pay $10 an hour," said Sandoval, was "a lot of work for little money."

Now, thanks to New York's prevailing wage law, Sandoval and his fellow illegal aliens will be paid $40 an hour – including taxes – for their work.

Darden won't face prosecution for violating the state's wage law, said Chris Perham of the Department of Labor.

"This is a first offense and in such cases we explained the laws," Perham said. "After that first chance, we will hold you accountable to the fullest extent of the law."

Too bad they won't hold the criminal aliens accountable to the fullest extent of the law.

Shays drops profanity-laced tirade on Capitol cop

The sense of entitlement in D.C. is clearly a bipartisan one. From Politico:

On Thursday afternoon, Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) got into a loud, angry dispute with a U.S. Capitol Police officer at the security checkpoint inside the entrance of the West Side of the Capitol. On Friday, Shays, a veteran lawmaker, offered a public apology for the incident and said that he wants to meet with the officer personally to reiterate how sorry he is.

Shays reportedly grabbed the officer during the dispute over whether the officer should allow a group of tourists to enter the building, said several sources. Tourists are not allowed to use the West Front entrance, but Shays was trying to bring the group through that entrance anyway. The officer refused to allow them in, and Shays then "yelled and screamed" at the officer, including using profanity, the sources said.

Freakin' wonderful...Shays is turning into the GOP's Cynthia McKinney! Hey, Shays, I've got a response for you in a language that you can understand: You, sir, are an a$$h0le!

Reid gets Clintonesque with meaning of "compromise"

Sen. Harry Reid offered his cooperation in December when the Iraq Study Group unveiled its recommendations with a plaintive call for a bipartisan effort to change the course of the war.

"Democrats will work with our Republican colleagues," promised the Nevada Democrat and soon-to-be majority leader, just weeks after an election that swept Democrats into the congressional majority on a wave of public frustration over Iraq.

Eight bitter months and nine major Iraq-related votes later, the meaning of Reid's pledge has come into sharp focus: Democrats will work with any GOP lawmaker willing to vote for a mandatory troop withdrawal; other Republicans need not apply.

This bellicose, uncompromising legislative strategy — on display again this week as Reid refused to allow votes on nonbinding GOP-backed Iraq proposals — has been an obstacle to any real bipartisan compromise on the war all year. And it effectively ended any chance that a significant number of Republican lawmakers critical of the war would join with Democrats this summer on any Iraq-related legislation.

The Democratic strategy has yet to yield many tangible results. Just eight of the 250 Republicans in the House and Senate have joined with Democrats calling for a withdrawal.

Excellent leadership, Harry. For those of you on the left, the prior sentence was sarcasm.

Silky in Men's Vogue

The hair, up close, is peppered with tiny strands of blond. Chestnut brown and so finely trimmed, mellifluous, smooth, and feathery, it could almost be a weave, the Platonic ideal as imagined by the Hair Club for Men. Along with the piercing blue eyes, slashing V-shaped smile, and a shimmering burgundy shirt tucked into stonewashed Levi's resting low on the hips, the hair completes the man: John Edwards, a populist Adonis, a golden god of a Southern Democrat.

Ah. I see.

The post (titled "John Edwards: Totally, Totally Not Gay") is about three weeks old, and I swear I don't know how I missed it. But this is just too much:

Haditha Marine's father speaks with Abscam Jack

Throughout this Haditha investigation our family has believed in the innocence of our son L/Cpl Justin Sharratt- we knew he was innocent. There are things I do not understand and I would like to find the answers. We do not seek revenge, but we would like to see justice. In a conversation with Congressman John Murtha, my questions still remain unanswered. With the help of the American people, I hope to find justice.

On Wednesday morning, July 17th I spoke with Congressman John Murtha via telephone from his Washington, DC office. We had a courteous conversation. I knew what to expect from a career politician and Congressman Murtha did not disappoint. Mr. Murtha avoided answering the hard questions and I was unable to press him for the answers. I wanted the conversation to remain amicable and decided to let him speak and avoid a heated confrontation.

At no time during the dialogue would Mr. Murtha acknowledge the impending exoneration of my son. I pressed him to use the word exoneration but the best I could get was “things seem to have gone well in your son’s Article 32. The General is a fair man and I believe he will do the right thing.” I replied, “ Lt. Col Paul Ware presented a strong recommendation for exoneration and we are anticipating Lt. Gen James Mattis following this recommendation.”

Mr. Murtha asked me if I had served in the military. He recalled his visits with injured Marines, soldiers and sailors. He said he supports our troops and it is the war he does not condone. Mr Murtha believes combat operations in Iraq have put an enormous strain on our Armed Forces. The stress of combat situations has led our troops to kill innocent civilians. I pointed out to Mr. Murtha, “ Our Haditha Marines are innocent until proven guilty.” It seems he is again denying our Marines their Constitutional rights of due process and the presumption of innocence. Mr. Murtha replied that we have a Marine(Mendoza) testifying that innocent women and children were killed in Haditha. I retorted that he is again believing the reports of the media and Mendoza was granted immunity for his lies. Mendoza has changed his testimony at least two times. NCIS may have threatened him with deportation and denial of US citizenship. This time I scolded him, “ I witnessed their(NCIS) conduct first hand in my son’s Article 32.”

I questioned Congressman Murtha as to his statements of 17 May 2006. On national television, in front of millions of Americans, he stated “ Marines killed innocent civilians in cold blood.” I asked him why he denied these Marines their Constitutional rights of due process and the presumption of innocence. Again the Congressman used his experience to side step the answer. Mr. Murtha stated his intentions were to point out the stress our military was under in Iraq. He replied we would not win the hearts of the Iraqi people by killing women and children. I again snapped, “ Our Haditha Marines have not been convicted of killing innocents and are innocent until proven guilty.”

I believe this conversation was the first step in obtaining justice for Our Haditha Marines. I did not expect Mr. Murtha to admit to or apologize for any wrongdoing in his role to railroad my son and his Marine comrades. The American people now know that his unfounded and untruthful allegations were used to further his political agenda. It is my intention to ask the Congress of the United States to censure Representative John Murtha and hold hearings to explain his conduct in respect to the Haditha incident. I will ask the American people to question his blatant disregard for the Constitutional rights of Our Haditha Marines. I will campaign to the voters of Pa Congressional District 12 to oust Representative Murtha from his elected office. The American people deserve better, we must demand better representation from our elected officials.

What a despicable human being Abscam Jack Murtha is! Kudos to Mr. Sharratt for putting Murtha in his place, even if Murtha is too vile and stupid to realize it.

Friday, July 20, 2007

38th anniversary

Old Soldier reminded me of this yesterday, so my apologies for being a day late (story of my life, huh?). Yesterday was the 38th anniversary of Chappaquiddick, where, as you all know, Ted Kennedrunk killed a woman in his car by allowing her to drown while he wandered up the road and pondered the political ramifications of his actions. Full details here, if you can stomach it.

I do not ever wish physical harm on an American politician simply because they are ideological opposites. As much as I detest Reid, Pelosi, et al, I do not wish ill upon them. Having said that, God forgive me but I find myself wishing ill on Ted Kennedrunk every time that pickled murderous windbag opens his ample cakehole and bloviates about anybody being morally bankrupt liars! The fact that many on the left gravitate towards this cretin is proof positive of the inherent depravity of those people.

Quote of the day

Democratic Senate leaders knew going into Wednesday's procedural roll call on their proposal to withdraw most U.S. forces from Iraq that they didn't have the votes to win, but victory wasn't their goal.

Again, the chickenhawk charge -- one should be willing to fight wars one advocates, yes?

But the trouble is that part of Olbermann's, and the entire left's, schtick is that they're really super-tough guys after all -- not cheese-eating surrender monkeys -- because, while they don't want to fight Al Qaeda in Iraq, they're just totally gung ho to fight Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and, now, Pakistan. In fact, the subtext very often seems to be that it's just the stubborn President Bush who is preventing them from grabbing a rifle and hopping on the next plane to Waziristan.

Question for Mr. Olbermann:

When, Sir, can we expect word of your enlistment? To fight in what is, by your own admission -- nay, bold proclamation -- what is in fact your war?

The intelligence report in question said, in essence, that, after the devastating blow we struck against al Qaeda in Afghanistan, the terrorists have regained some strength in their safe haven on Pakistan's Northwest Frontier. It doesn't say that al Qaeda is stronger than ever - although that's what the Dems imply.

In 2001, al Qaeda had a country of its own. Today, it survives in isolated compounds. And guess which "veteran warrior" wants to go get them?

Sen. Barack Obama. Far too important to ever serve in the military himself, Obama thinks we should invade Pakistan.

Go for it, Big Guy. Of course, we'll have to reintroduce the draft to find enough troops. And we'll need to kill, at a minimum, a few hundred thousand tribesmen and their families. We'll need to occupy the miserable place indefinitely.

Oh, and Pakistan's a nuclear power already teetering on the edge of chaos.

Barack Obama, strategist and military expert. Who knew?

I don't believe any Democrat actually wants to fight wars against Al Qaeda, or anyone else, anywhere at all. But they claim they do, they advocate for huge invasions of 100 million strong nuclear-armed countries, and of course they vote for any stray declaration of war that should reach their desks within 60 days of an election.

So if they are all gung-ho to finally "finish the job Bush wouldn't" in Islamabad and Karachi, I trust they know we need more troops -- and the army does in fact permit liberals to serve openly as such. There is no "don't ask, don't tell" rule about being a leftist jagoff, I can assure them all.

So:

When's the big sign-up day all you super badass warriors have planned? Is it a big surprise you're waiting to spring on the rest of the country?

I trust they're just waiting to receive and read the new Harry Potter book, and then they'll be training to storm the beaches of Southern Pakistan presently.

Dems side with terrorists and trial lawyers over American security

Feel free to question not just their patriotism, but their sanity. From Hot Air:

Whose water are the Democrats carrying on this? It seems to come down to two suspects — trial lawyers or the mau mauers at CAIR. Or both.

Democrats are trying to pull a provision from a homeland security bill that will protect the public from being sued for reporting suspicious behavior that may lead to a terrorist attack, according to House Republican leadership aides.

The legislation, which moves to a House and Senate conference committee this afternoon, will implement final recommendations from the 911 Commission.

Rep. Pete King, New York Republican and ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee, and Rep. Steve Pearce, New Mexico Republican, sponsored the bill after a group of Muslim imams filed a lawsuit against U.S. Airways and unknown or “John Doe” passengers after they were removed for suspicious behavior aboard Flight 300 from Minneapolis to Phoenix on Nov. 20 before their removal.

“Democrats are trying to find any technical excuse to keep immunity out of the language of the bill to protect citizens, who in good faith, report suspicious activity to police or law enforcement,” Mr. King said in an interview last night.

“This is a slap in the face of good citizens who do their patriotic duty and come forward, and it caves in to radical Islamists,” Mr. King said.

“I don’t see how you can have a homeland security bill without protecting people who come forward to report suspicious activity,” Mr. King said.

Republicans aides say they will put up a fight with Democrats when the conference committee begins at 1 p.m., to reinsert the language, but that public pressure is also needed.

The story notes that Democrats like Homeland Security Chairman Rep. Bennie Thompson opposed the “John Doe” protection out of fears it would lead to racial profiling. Because, of course, racial profiling is so much worse than losing a city full of innocent people....Update: It’s just breaking that the Democrats actually spiked the John Doe proposal in committee. They have exposed to Americans to more terrorism and the threat of lawsuit at the same time. They really ought to reap the whirlwind for this.

If the Democrats get their way, ordinary Americans like Brian Morganstern will have to weigh the threat of lawsuit when they decide whether to trust their gut when they see or hear something suspicious. Some will choose to avoid the lawsuit, and Americans will die.

Plame lawsuit chucked to the weeds

Former CIA operative Valerie Plame lost a lawsuit Thursday that demanded money from Bush administration officials whom she blamed for leaking her agency identity.

Plame, the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, had accused Vice President Dick Cheney and others of conspiring to disclose her identity in 2003. Plame said that violated her privacy rights and was illegal retribution for her husband's criticism of the administration.

U.S. District Judge John D. Bates dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds and said he would not express an opinion on the constitutional arguments.

Bates dismissed the case against all defendants: Cheney, White House political adviser Karl Rove, former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby and former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage.

Plame's lawyers said from the beginning the suit would be a difficult case to make. Public officials normally are immune from such suits filed in connection with their jobs.

Plame's identity was revealed in a syndicated newspaper column in 2003, shortly after Wilson began criticizing the administration's march to war in Iraq.

Armitage and Rove were the sources for that article, which touched off a lengthy leak investigation. Nobody was charged with leaking but Libby was convicted of lying and obstruction the investigation. Bush commuted Libby's 2 1/2-year prison term before the former aide served any time....Though Bates said the case raised "important questions relating to the propriety of actions undertaken by our highest government officials," he said there was no legal basis for the suit.

Lawyers have said courts traditionally are reluctant to wade into these types of cases, particularly when Congress has established other resolutions.

In this case, Bates said, Congress passed the Privacy Act to cover many of Plame's claims. Courts have held that the Privacy Act cannot be used to hold government officials personally liable for damages in court.

Bates also sided with administration officials who said they were acting within their job duties. Plame had argued that what they did was illegal and outside the scope of their government jobs.

"The alleged means by which defendants chose to rebut Mr. Wilson's comments and attack his credibility may have been highly unsavory," Bates wrote.

"But there can be no serious dispute that the act of rebutting public criticism, such as that levied by Mr. Wilson against the Bush administration's handling of prewar foreign intelligence, by speaking with members of the press is within the scope of defendants' duties as high-level Executive Branch officials," Bates said.

Thursday, July 19, 2007

Quote of the day

BEVERAGE ALERT! Put down your drink pronto. You have been warned! From Newsbusters:

Most of Dan Rather's pontifications on today's "Morning Joe" rolled off my back, as I flipped between his performance and that of Tiger Woods over the closing holes at Carnoustie.

But something made me sit up and take notice. At 8:34 A.M. EDT, Rather suddenly blurted out: "I'm big on personal responsibility." And yes, he managed to do so without laughing.

Oh. My. God(insert deity du jour here).

This is the same guy who put demonstrably fake documents on the air in his bid to bring down Bush a few weeks before the presidential election of 2004, then stood by as Mary Mapes and three other high-level executive henchmen took the fall, then just last year continued to stand by the since debunked "fake but accurate" story? Dan freakin' Rather was trying to convince us that he's all about "personal responsibility"?

I am marking on my calendar that Thursday, July 19, 2007, at 1:50 p.m. EST, I have officially seen everything.

Big Dem donor is a "staunch Republican" in eyes of reporter

In the spirit of Bubba, I opine that "it depends on the meaning of the words 'staunch' and 'Republican'"! From Michelle Malkin:

Great catch here by Warner Todd Huston at Newsbusters on a Chicago Sun-Times reporter’s magical transformation of a big Democrat contributor into a “staunch Republican.” Presto change-o:

Why is it that every time the MSM writes a story about a supposedly “staunch Republican” who is vocally supporting the opposing Party, we have to wonder of its veracity? Maybe it’s because there always seems to be a few little problems with the claim of “staunchness” on the part of the MSM’s favored Party hopper du jour? And in this case, the Chicago Sun-Times story titled “GOP lawyer sold on Dems” by Jennifer Hunter, we have no better assurances than we ever do that the claimed “staunch Republican” is either very “staunch” or very “Republican.”

Sun-Times writer Hunter dug up a supposedly “staunch Republican” named Jim Ronca, a trial lawyer from Pennsylvania. Mr. Ronca, claims Hunter, is “certain of one thing: He is not going to vote Republican in the 2008 presidential election.”

But there is more than that. He also says he’ll financially support Democrats, and he makes this announcement as if this is somehow an earth shattering rebuke to the GOP, or so the Sun-Times wishes us to believe.

Here is the kicker from Hunter’s story:

“I’m not only going to vote Democratic, I’m going to financially support the Democrats,” Ronca said after a luncheon forum of the American Association for Justice, featuring Gov. Bill Richardson, Sen. Barack Obama, former Sen. John Edwards, Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Joe Biden. “The Republicans in Washington are an embarrassment.”

Judging from his public donation record, though, this “staunch Republican” also apparently believes that Republicans everywhere else are an “embarrassment,” too. Check out the majority of his political contributions:

Conservatives on the Internet asked Hunter to explain. Her reaction? A column complaining about: 1) how mean the Internet watchdogs are; 2) how readers should blame her editor, not her; and 3) how one registered Republican just decided he’s supporting Hillary, so no one should complain about her embarrassingly inaccurate description of Ronca as a “staunch Republican.”

The thanks you get...

Is it possible that Republicans are fed up with Bush and the party's current "leaders" to the point that they're leaving the party? Of course it is! But to define a Democrat trial lawyer who has been giving the majority of his money to Democrats before Bush got elected as a "staunch Republican" is disingenuous and a bastardization of the English language that ol' Bubba can appreciate.

This is a dishonest tactic often seen with the left: they pretend to be Republicans or disenfranchised former Republicans so as to give themselves a level of credibility to which they are not due. No self-respecting Republican would vote for any of the Marxists masquerading as moderate Democrats, even if he hated Bush and other Republicans so badly that he's counting down the days until January 20, 2009.

"Libertarians and the war"

Excellent column by Randy Barnett in Opinion Journal. Please read the whole thing, an excerpt of which is here:

While the number of Americans who self-identify as "libertarian" remains small, a substantial proportion agree with the core stances of limited constitutional government in both the economic and social spheres--what is sometimes called "economic conservatism" and "social liberalism." But if they watched the Republican presidential debate on May 15, many Americans might resist the libertarian label, because they now identify it with strident opposition to the war in Iraq, and perhaps even to the war against Islamic jihadists.

During that debate, the riveting exchange between Rudy Giuliani and Ron Paul about whether American foreign policy provoked the 9/11 attack raised the visibility of both candidates. When Mr. Paul, a libertarian, said that the 9/11 attack happened "because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years," Mr. Giuliani's retort--that this was the first time he had heard that "we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. . . . and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11"--sparked a spontaneous ovation from the audience. It was an electrifying moment that allowed one to imagine Mr. Giuliani as a forceful, articulate president.

The exchange also drew attention to Mr. Paul, who until then had been a rather marginal member of the 10-man Republican field. One striking feature of Mr. Paul's debate performance was his insistence on connecting his answer to almost every question put to him--even friendly questions about taxes, spending and personal liberty--to the war.

This raised the question: Does being a libertarian commit one to a particular stance toward the Iraq war? The simple answer is "no."

First and foremost, libertarians believe in robust rights of private property, freedom of contract, and restitution to victims of crime. They hold that these rights define true "liberty" and provide the boundaries within which individuals may pursue happiness by making their own free choices while living in close proximity to each other. Within these boundaries, individuals can actualize their potential while minimizing their interference with the pursuit of happiness by others....But here is the rub. While all libertarians accept the principle of self-defense, and most accept the role of the U.S. government in defending U.S. territory, libertarian first principles of individual rights and the rule of law tell us little about what constitutes appropriate and effective self-defense after an attack. Devising a military defense strategy is a matter of judgment or prudence about which reasonable libertarians may differ greatly....

Silky Pony botches analogy about poverty

The Breck Girl, he of the $1200 'do and energy hog multi-million dollar mansion, tries again to relate to the "common man" in the "other America" in which he doesn't live. From BTN:

Silky Tells Matthews That Being Poor Is Not Being able To Eat At Restaurants07.17.2007 - 04:03 PM | Greg Hengler

Chris Matthews really strokes the Silky Pony's mane here. First, Silky is invited by Matthews to debate on Hardball against other Dems but his Silkiness says that he will agree to only if ALL candidates will be invited. This coming after the secret conversation caught on live mic between the Silkster and Hillary. How fair of him. Next, Silks answers Matthews' question: "Tell the people what it's like to be poor?" Silky tells the cliff notes version of his often-told story of leaving a restaurant as a young lad after his father saw how he could not afford to eat there. That's poor! Not eating out. Wow, if Silky keeps on his "Poverty Tour" everyone will be able to eat at Spago's.

This guy is a virtual cornucopia of material for the blogosphere, isn't he?

Terrorism involved? Nah, couldn't be!

Large Cache of Weapons Discovered In Dallas Apartment Near Federal Building; Fundamentalist Christian Sought For Questioning—AceWell, I assume he's a fundamentalist Christian. They keep telling me those are the sorts of violent zealots who stock up on Armageddon levels of firepower.

Given that the tenant keeps traveling back and forth to the Middle East, I can only assume he's part of some sort of Biblical/Left Behind Christotourism travel package.

Federal sources tell CBS 11 News that law enforcement officers have confiscated a large cache of weapons found in an apartment near the federal building in downtown Dallas. ...Police are still taking inventory of all the weapons seized. Among those discovered were two AK-47 rifles, an Uzi 9 millimeter submachine gun, a TEC-9 submachine gun, a 40 millimeter ordnance launcher, a handheld ordnance launcher, and about 500 rounds of ammunition.

Police seized the weapons even though they say it's possible for all of them to be legal.

Child pornography was also found in the apartment, which could lead to criminal charges...Authorities tell us the tenant travels to the Middle East frequently and just returned from there this morning....However, authorities say there is no reason to suspect terrorism as a motive.

Nah, no reason at all.

Just because a pedophile likes to stock up on machine guns and ordnance launchers doesn't mean he's all about terrorism, now does it, you judgmental b#stards? For those of you on the left, the prior sentence was sarcasm.

$1 mill for mystery project

Anyone tired yet of the "culture of corruption" hypocrisy? Me too. From Politico:

What's a paltry one million dollars to a member of Congress?

Well, apparently not enough to know if an organization about to receive that big block of cash actually exists.

Republican Rep. Jeff Flake of Arizona, the fiscal crusader who's never met an earmark he likes, questioned Democratic Rep. Peter J. Visclosky of Indiana on the House floor Tuesday about whether the Center for Instrumented Critical Infrastructure actually exists - since, hey, it's getting like a million bucks or something.

Visclosky, who chairs the spending subcommittee responsible for the project, had to admit that, well, he didn't have a clue.

After a lengthy back-and-forth, Flake, complaining that his staff couldn't find a website for the center, asked Visclosky, "Does the center currently exist?"

"At this time, I do not know," the Indiana Democrat replied. "But if it does not exist, the monies could not go to it."

As if that wasn't bad enough...

And who could possibly be the sponsor of such an earmark? Yes, you guessed it, the man Republicans love to hate, Pennsylvania Democrat John P. Murtha.

Despite the money's uncertain destination, the House rejected Flake's measure to strike the funds, 326-98. And the Visclosky bill also sailed through, 312-112.

As I said, what's one million dollars to a member of Congress?

UPDATE: I failed to report last night that a certificate filed with the requested funds says the money is actually earmarked to Concurrent Technologies Corporation, a nonprofit technological consulting firm. A brief search of campaign finance records shows CTC President and CEO Daniel R. DeVos, of alternately Central City and Johnstown, Pa. has contributed $7,000 to Murtha's reelection campaign since April 2002.

Abscam Jack, still crazy after all these years. Quite a deal for Abscam Jack and DeVos, wouldn't you say? DeVos gives Jack $7k for his re-election campaign, and gets a nice cool million (not a dime of which is out of Abscam Jack's pocket) as a return on his investment. I guess it's a good thing we've got those principled, uncorrupted Dems running the show now, huh?

Young took extreme exception to an amendment by Rep. Scott Garrett (R-N.J.) to strike money in a spending bill for native Alaskan and Hawaiian educational programs....And lest we forget, Young, who used to chair the House Transportation Committee, is responsible for the so-called "Bridge to Nowhere," a proposed span connecting Ketchikan, Alaska, with the tiny island of Gravina that would have cost $315 million – and eventually came to symbolize profligate spending under Republican rule.

Oh, and he has spent more than $250,000 on legal fees so far this year at the same time that federal investigators probe some of his campaign's biggest contributors.

Garrett refrained from asking for an official reprimand, but he and other conservative Republicans took after Young's declaration that the funds in question represented his money. The assembled conservatives then launched into a general attack on earmarked spending.

Members of the conservative Republican Study Committee gave Garrett a standing ovation later in the day during the group's weekly meeting, an aide to one conservative member said.

Get it through your head, dipsh#t: my money from Florida sure as hell does NOT belong to you in Alaska! Tax money is the people's money, you corrupt self-serving piece of caribou crap, and don't you ever freakin' forget it!

Obama: Teach sex ed in kindergarten

The depravity that these morons possess is staggering. When they're not writing about fellating Cambodian boys, these pervs are trying to get sex ed in kindergarten. From ABC:

ABC News' Teddy Davis and Lindsey Ellerson Report: Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., told Planned Parenthood Tuesday that sex education for kindergarteners, as long as it is "age-appropriate," is "the right thing to do."

"I remember Alan Keyes . . . I remember him using this in his campaign against me," Obama said in reference to the conservative firebrand who ran against him for the U.S. Senate in 2004. Sex education for kindergarteners had become an issue in his race against Keyes because of Obama’s work on the issue as chairman of the health committee in the Illinois state Senate.

"Age-appropriate" for five-year-olds, huh? I can see it now: "Little Johnny has a corndog, and he wants to put it in Little Suzy's lunchbox. Here, let's demonstrate!" Of course, the San Franistan edition would feature Little Adam and Little Nigel trying to roast weenies during a camping retreat, but I digress.

Tuesday, July 17, 2007

Arafat died of AIDS

Karma...it's not just for breakfast anymore. God forgive me, but this made me laugh harder than Bill Clinton does whenever taking an oath (marital oath, oath of office, oath to tell the truth in court, etc.). From Moonbattery:

[Arafat having died of AIDS was] pretty much an open secret in diplomatic circles. I'm in Madrid at the moment, and it prompted many knowing chortles among political types I mentioned it to today, along with fond reminiscences about Yasser's corps of hunky blond Scandinavian bodyguards — an odd bunch of chaps to find in Ramallah, but presumably they were doing the jobs Palestinians won't do. (Although I bet the Nobel prize committee would do it! - Ed.)

James Lewis observes that the Western media must have known all about it, but kept it quiet for fear of damaging the postmortem reputation of their favorite terrorist. He accuses Arafat of being a Typhoid Mary of AIDS, knowingly spreading the deadly disease as he indulged his homosexual lusts. This would hardly be out of character for a malignant narcissist like Arafat, who has made it obvious that other humans exist only for his own pleasure and enrichment; their suffering means nothing. Look what he did to Israelis with his terror wars, and to Palestinians by deliberately holding them in poverty, resolutely scuttling any chance of peace and squirreling away Western aid in his own Swiss bank accounts.

This is the kind of guy who gets awarded the Nobel Peace Prize nowadays, thanks to moonbattery.

What do the bloodthirsty camelhumping jihadists who idolzed him think of such un-Islamic (and punishable by death) behavior? Prediction: "It's a Zionist lie! Let's riot and blow stuff up! Le-le-le-le-le-le-le-le-le-le!"

Dems finally ready to cut government office

The new Democratic Congress has finally found a government agency whose budget It wants to cut: an obscure Labor Department office that monitors the compliance of unions with federal law.

In the past six years, the Office of Labor Management Standards, or OLMS, has helped secure the convictions of 775 corrupt union officials and court-ordered restitution to union members of over $70 million in dues. The House is set to vote Thursday on a proposal to chop 20% from the OLMS budget. Every other Labor Department enforcement agency is due for a budget increase, and overall the Congress has added $935 million to the Bush administration's budget request for Labor. The only office the Democrats want to cut back is the one engaged in union oversight....OLMS, the Labor office that watches over union disclosure forms, says that last year 93% of unions met its reporting requirements. But the other 7% deserve scrutiny. Union members deserve to know how their dues are spent. They might want to know that in 2005, the National Education Association gave more than $65 million to Jesse Jackson's Rainbow PUSH Coalition, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, and dozens of other liberal advocacy groups that have nothing to do with the interests of teachers. In 2006, 49 individuals employed at the national AFL-CIO headquarters were paid more than $130,000. "Union members are also discovering the extent to which their dues money is funding lavish trips for union officials to luxury resorts and other expensive perks unrelated to collective bargaining," says Labor Secretary Elaine Chao....Investigations conducted by OLMS also have led to an impressive list of successful prosecutions of union officials. Just last week Willie Haynes, a member of the Saginaw, Mich., City Council who also served as a United Auto Workers financial secretary, pleaded guilty to falsifying his union local's reports. In May, Chuck Crawley, a former Teamster's local president in Houston, was sentenced to 6 1/2 years in prison for stuffing a ballot box so he could be elected president of his union local and embezzling dues money....Union officials have publicly stated that they believe many of OLMS's requirements are burdensome and unnecessary. Since unions helped elect the current Congress, they are now seeking action on their agenda, which ranges from holding fewer secret ballot elections to cutting back on the oversight that is at the heart of the 1959 union "bill of rights" that JFK championed.

Once again, the Dems have their dirty little hands in the "culture of corruption" cookie jar.

Muslim Congressman Godwins himself

Democratic Rep. Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, is defending himself Monday after comparing President Bush to Adolf Hitler and leaving the impression the administration may have rigged the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

Speaking to an atheist group on July 8, Ellison said that the president acted much the way Hitler did when the Reichstag, or German Parliament building, was burned in 1933 ahead of elections that pitted Hitler's Nazi Party against others, including the Communists. Hitler, who was suspected of ordering the fire, declared emergency powers that helped him launch his dictatorial and murderous reign.

"It's almost like the Reichstag fire, kind of reminds me of that," Ellison told the group, according to The Minneapolis Star Tribune. "After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the Communists for it and it put the leader of that country [Hitler] in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted."

So he's a Truther, right? You know, one of those paranoid asshats who think that Bush destroyed the Twin Towers (and part of the Pentagon and made a crater in PA)? Sounds like it...until he gets all John Kerry on us:

During his speech, Ellison went on to tell the 350-member Atheists for Human Rights: "I'm not saying [Sept. 11] was a [U.S.] plan, or anything like that, because, you know, that's how they put you in the nut-ball box — dismiss you."

Romney trying to be like Silky Pony?

What kinds of things do you think of when you hear "communications consulting"?

Speechwriting? Message strategy?

Well, "communications consulting" is how presidential candidate Mitt Romney recorded $300 in payments to a California company that describes itself as "a mobile beauty team for hair, makeup and men's grooming and spa services."

Romney spokesman Kevin Madden confirmed that the payments -- actually two separate $150 charges -- were for makeup, though he said the former Massachusetts governor had only one session with Hidden Beauty of West Hills, Calif. That was before the May 3 Republican presidential debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, Calif., co-sponsored by MSNBC and The Politico.

"We used them once but booked time twice and still had to render payment for the appointment time," said Madden, who said the disbursement was listed as "communications consulting" because it was paid from the communications division's budget.

If I'm gonna whack Johnboy Edwards for being a lavishly spending primperdonna, then I'm gonna poke fun at the Mittster, too. Seriously, "a mobile beauty team for hair, makeup and men's grooming and spa services"?

Monday, July 16, 2007

News bytes

Senators Lindsey Grahamnesty and Jim "Cambodian boy fellated" Webb dueled it out on "Meet the Press" regarding Iraq. Webb's hypocrisy went unnoticed and unchallenged when he said the following to Graham: "This is one thing I really take objection to—may I speak?—is politicians who try to put their political views into the mouths of soldiers." (1) Right, because you've never done that before, right, Webb? (2) At least Webb was talking about putting words in mouths instead of something else, right?

Awesome satire from the Onion, called "John Edwards Vows To End All Bad Things By 2011". Excerpt: "In an effort to jump-start a presidential campaign that still has not broken into the top Democratic tier, former Sen. John Edwards made his most ambitious policy announcement yet at a campaign event in Iowa Monday: a promise to eliminate all unpleasant, disagreeable, or otherwise bad things from all aspects of American life by the end of his second year in office."

Another liberal fishwrap contributor's condescending view of the military: "Some have argued that without a draft, enlisting in this war is a matter of choice, so what happens, happens. But that's not necessarily true in the case of National Guard troops who have been called up. And as for soldiers as young as my nephew, I don't see enlistment as a well-informed choice but as a product of manipulation." In other words, his nephew is an idiot? Thanks, Uncle Steve.

Friday, July 13, 2007

Bill Richardson's "playful" gay slur

Democratic presidential candidate Bill Richardson said Thursday his use of a Spanish word that some contend is a slur against homosexuals was meant to be playful but apologized to anyone who was offended. With critics revisiting the statement he made on a radio program a year ago, Richardson questioned the timing of their comments.

"My record is the strongest among the presidential candidates on gay rights issues and I'm puzzled by the timing of this. When it happened a year ago, nobody seemed to think it was terribly important. Now it surfaces," he told The Associated Press in an interview.

"It's probably a sign from other campaigns that they are little worried about me," he said.

Richardson, a Hispanic and the governor of New Mexico, was a guest on Don Imus' syndicated radio program on March 29, 2006. Imus, who later lost his job over making racial comments, jokingly said one of his staffers suggested Richardson was "not really Hispanic."

Richardson replied in Spanish that if the staffer believes that, then he is a "maricon."

Scooter's sentence commuted because he's not black? Plus, more from Silky Pone-Pone

Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama on Thursday derided President Bush's commutation of former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's prison term even as black men routinely serve time behind bars.

All eight Democratic hopefuls and a lone Republican candidate, Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo, addressed the NAACP convention. The Democrats focused their criticism on the administration's record on race relations and poverty.

"We know we have more work to do when Scooter Libby gets no prison time and a 21-year-old honor student, who hadn't even committed a felony, gets 10 years in prison," Obama said to loud cheers.

Aides said Obama was referring to Genarlow Wilson, a Georgia man serving a 10-year prison sentence for having consensual oral sex with a 15-year-old girl when he was 17. A judge last month ordered Wilson to be freed, but prosecutors are blocking the order.

While I agree with Obama's take on the Genarlow Wilson incident (it's a crying shame what miscarriage of justice occurred there), I find it repulsive that he has to resort to race-baiting by comparing an unrelated case to Libby. Had Genarlow Wilson been white, would Obama have made that comment or analogy? Of course not, for it would not have had the same racial hysteria overtones.

By the way, Silky Pony must have another about face like he did with Iraq:

Edwards' call for felons' voting rights to be restored also received loud cheers, although as a North Carolina senator in 2002 he voted against a bill allowing felons the right to vote in federal elections.

Well, he was Waffles' running mate, so he must have learned from the best.

NJ state senator wants to ban toy guns

I don't have to tell you which party this moonbat legislator comes from, do I? From Joisey:

A New Jersey senator wants to make it illegal to sell or give to anyone under age 18 toy guns that look so realistic they can be mistaken for a real firearm.

"The margin between a child's stupid mistake and a tragic ending is far too thin," said Sen. Nicholas Scutari.

Scutari, D-Union, introduced the proposal in late June and plans to push it when the Legislature reconvenes late this year. He said the bill stems from an incident in a Union Township where four students were suspended after bringing a cap gun to school.

"We need to stress to our children that guns are not toys, but deadly weapons which should always be regarded with extreme caution and handled with respect," Scutari said. "Restricting access to imitation firearms will help to drive that point home."

Actually, moron, guns are not toys, but TOY guns are TOYS! Continuing:

Violators would face a fine of up to $1,000 and up to six months in prison.

Little Johnny buys a water pistol with his allowance and winds up in the hoosegow. Brilliant.

New Jersey must have officially run out of all other problems with which to deal, if they're now turning to banning toy guns.

"Fat tax" could "save lives"?

A "fat tax" on salty, sugary and fatty foods could save thousands of lives each year, according to a study published on Thursday.

Researchers at Oxford University say that charging Value Added Tax (VAT) at 17.5 percent on foods deemed to be unhealthy would cut consumer demand and reduce the number of heart attacks and strokes.

The purchase tax is already levied on a small number of products such as potato crisps, ice cream, confectionery and chocolate biscuits, but most food is exempt.

The move could save an estimated 3,200 lives in Britain each year, according to the study in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.

"A well-designed and carefully-targeted fat tax could be a useful tool for reducing the burden of food-related disease," the study concluded.

The team from Oxford's Department of Public Health said higher taxes have already been imposed on cigarettes and alcohol to encourage healthy living.

...and those taxes have been failures at that for which they were intended. We have cig and booze taxes here, too, with similar results: millions of people still smoke and drink. All these silly "sin taxes" do is line the pockets of Big Guvmint. Besides, if that 20 oz. cold one at AJ's Sports Bar costs $3.00, would you order fewer if the suggested 17.5% tax were added, bringing the total to $3.53? Me neither.

Aside from the obvious "Nanny State" argument, there's another argument to be made here. Whenever government gets it mitts on our money through taxes on cigarettes or alcohol, they almost always say that they will use the tax money on health insurance government programs, usually for kids. Well, what if the purported desired effect is achieved, i.e. more people finally quit smoking or drinking? That would, by default, mean less money would be available to fund these new health insurance programs! Gasp! Why, how could you former smokers and former drinkers be so selfish as to deprive children of their health care? Do your patriotic duty, by God(insert deity of preference here) and get out there and destroy your own health so you can fund the programs that preserve the health of others!

I work out and eat healthy foods because I choose to do so. If you don't live similarly, then who in the Sam Hill would I be to demand that you do? I would be Big Guvmint, that's who.

Thursday, July 12, 2007

Quote of the day

This is juicy in several different yummy flavors! Get this, from Newsbusters:

Thursday’s edition of "Good Morning America" featured a Diane Sawyer anecdote that revealed the low opinion Americans have of journalists. After wrapping up a segment on people who avoid jury duty, the ABC co-host recounted the "hurtful" experience she had in a courtroom:[Link to video]

[Wrap up of segment on getting out of jury duty.]

Diane Sawyer: "You know, I wanted to sit on a jury once and I was taken off the jury. And the judge said to me, 'Can, you know, can you tell the truth and be fair?' And I said, 'That's what journalists do.' And everybody in the courtroom laughed. It was the most hurtful moment I think I've ever had."

I don't know what's funnier: the jury's laughter (and laugh they should), or that Dim Diane was clueless and naive enough to think that normal Americans hold her and her MSM brethren in such high esteem.

This blog is rated...

Apprently, "This rating was determined based on the presence of the following words":

gun (10x)murder (5x)bomb (3x)steal (2x)death (1x)

That's outrageous! I mean, I could have sworn I've used those words a helluva lot more times than that!

The rating isn't based on racy photos, on threats, or on foul language (since I avoid the former and try to keep the latter to a minimum). Interestingly, according to this same "rating" site, my blog is more risqué and less tame than the Kos kooks' site (they got a PG-13) and the DUmb#ss Underground site (rated G??)! You ever see the level of profanity, veiled threats, and vitriol there? Yikes.

We should embrace the Fairness Doctrine?

Many of the points below have been made here by me and commenters, but this is a good way to tie all the points together. From Bruce Chapman:

Liberals are hailing a report that calls for federal regulations to end the "structural imbalance in political talk radio." Two think tanks, the Center for American Progress and the Free Press, complain that more than 90 percent of the programs on talk radio feature conservative hosts and themes while only 10 percent are "progressive."

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has promised to examine the report's recommendations for possible legislation and Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., says flatly, "It's time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine. I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they're in a better position to make a decision."

That really is a good, old-fashioned attitude, all right. But under the so-called Fairness Doctrine that the Federal Communications Commission pursued until 1987, many broadcasters observed that government regulation actually stifled the free market in opinion and effectively politics to little-watched schedules on Sunday mornings. It was known informally as "the public affairs ghetto." Stations presented only as much public debate as they needed to secure renewal of their public licenses.

But the new think tank study insists that talk radio is "imbalanced" and that the imbalance is due largely to the preferences of large radio conglomerates that are run by middle-aged white men. They demand that the government step in and break up the big radio chains and require as much progressive programming as conservative.

At this point Republicans, perhaps surprisingly, are rubbing their hands and hoping for a fight on the Fairness Doctrine. They think the threats from liberal legislators will backfire, helping to unite and activate the nation's 50 million or so talk radio listeners, most of them conservatives, and get them to the polls.

But the right could be making a mistake. Instead of opposing a new "Fairness Doctrine," perhaps conservatives should embrace it -- providing, that is, that the new policy is extended to all media, not just talk radio. (Do I notice some "progressives" throwing down their papers in disgust?)

Let's start with that most public of federal broadcast entities, National Public Radio. Increasingly, its sponsors range from foundations with an ideological ax to grind to law firms and national teachers unions. Conservatives find that stories they care about just don't make it onto NPR schedules. When the rare conservative gets invited to participate on an NPR issues panel, somehow there are two or three liberals facing him, with a liberal host recognizing the speakers.

Next, the new Fairness Doctrine should apply to television, including not just PBS, but also CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN and MSNBC, as well as the FOX channel. When newscasters seek legally required balance on a given issue, let's see if they can be persuaded to find the most articulate conservative -- not the most egregious and unpopular -- to reply to the liberal voice.

In addition to cable broadcasting, the new Fairness Doctrine also should reach into the press. I know print media have always been exempt, but, hey, judicial precedents change. Newspapers and news magazines not only use the public mails to ship some of their goods (often at subsidized rates), but they also run their delivery trucks over public roads and park their corner coin-boxes on public sidewalks. The current philosophy of government seems to be, if it moves, the government has a say in it, so why should newspapers get away with sitting in aloof Olympian judgment on everyone else?

It is never going to happen, you say. Well, OK, but let's just open up the fairness issue as wide as possible and see where the debate takes us.

It should be exciting, especially when we have congressional hearings that extend the concept of political and cultural "fairness" still further -- to Hollywood.

Irony alert: Johnny Mac violates campaign finance law?

About 3 p.m. Tuesday, Senator John McCain ducked off the Senate floor, entered the Republican cloakroom and took out his mobile phone. Just hours after accepting the resignation of his two top campaign aides, he was making a conference call to his top fund-raisers to urge them to keep up the fight.

The call, however, may only have exacerbated an already tough week for Mr. McCain. Senate ethics rules expressly forbid lawmakers to engage in campaign activities inside Senate facilities. If Mr. McCain solicited campaign contributions on a call from government property, that would be a violation of federal criminal law as well.

There is no evidence that Mr. McCain has made a habit of making such calls or otherwise exploiting his office for political gain, and he is hardly the first lawmaker to call a donor from under the Capitol dome. But he made the call as he was in the spotlight because of the staff shake-up, sagging poll numbers and disappointing fund-raising of his Republican presidential primary campaign.

It was the kind of technical mistake that seasoned aides — like the ones his campaign is now letting go — are supposed to prevent.

Mr. McCain was well aware of the rules. Ten years ago he led Republican calls for an independent prosecutor to investigate accusations of violations of the same rules by Vice President Al Gore. Mr. McCain went on to make the episode a cornerstone of both his 2000 Republican primary campaign and his argument for the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law....Back then, the need for campaign finance reform was one of Mr. McCain’s favorite themes, and he often mocked Mr. Gore’s argument that there was “no controlling legal authority” forbidding his fund-raising calls from another federal property, the White House.

“The American people deserve a controlling ethical authority,” Mr. McCain used to repeat on the campaign trail, “as well as controlling legal authority.”

Johnny Mac and his boy Russ stepped all over the First Amendment, with an assist from Jorgé W. Bush and the Supremes, with that awful Campaign Finance Reform Act. How fitting that he is now running afoul of it.

"Al Gore And NBC: Birds Of A Feather"

Politics: Was what Al Gore called "the largest global entertainment event in all of human history" also the largest in-kind political contribution? And where's the Fairness Doctrine when you need it?

Considering that here in the U.S. the Peacock Network's three-hour Gore infomercial on global warming lost out in the ratings to "Cops" and "America's Funniest Home Videos," Gore's claim may be open to question. Live Earth, in fact, may have been America's funniest home video. Ever. (Ouch! - Ed.)

But thanks in large part to the 75 hours of free airtime that NBC gave Gore on its various stations, starting with NBC and including CNBC, Bravo, the Sundance channel, Universal HD and Telemundo, Gore may now be the 800-pound gorilla this political season.

Gore insists he's not running for president. Yet, as we have wondered before, why would a man who insists that global warming is the biggest threat to mankind, bigger than nuclear terror, not want control of the reins of a major world polluter and chief resister to Kyoto?

From the other side of his mouth, Harrison opined: "If it's a political issue, it's whether the political will exists to address that change. We know we need to do something, and this is a way to heighten awareness."

So he considers it NBC's mission to generate that political will in an election cycle in support of a man who once ran for president.

NBC and GE have other interests in hyping climate change. Let's not forget GE is the parent of NBC and stands to make a wad of cash from selling alternative energy products from wind turbines to solar panels to those compact fluorescent bulbs containing mercury.

So when Gore prances on stage to demand we stop building coal-fired plants, that's music to GE's corporate ears.

NBC's Ann Curry certainly thinks global warming is a political issue. During prime-time coverage, she almost got down on her knees to beg the jolly green giant to run for the White House.

Interviewing Gore from the site of the concert in New Jersey, Curry gushed:

"A lot of people want me to ask you tonight if you're running for president. And I know what you're answer is gonna be, believe me. I gotta ask you though. After fueling this grass-roots movement, if you become convinced that without you there will not be the political will in the White House to fight global warming to the level that is required, because the clock is ticking, would you answer the call? Would you answer the call, yes or no?"

Certainly Gore thinks global warming is a political issue, appearing earlier this year before Democrat-controlled House and Senate committees pleading for action. During his opening statement before the House, he famously said: "The planet has a fever. If your baby has a fever, you go to the doctor."

After Gore's testimony, a better course of action would have been to ask for a second opinion.

When a conservative appears on talk radio, liberals cry for the Fairness Doctrine. Seventy-five free hours for Archbishop Gore's Church of Climate Change? Not a peep.

Al Qaeda at pre-9/11 strength?

U.S. intelligence analysts have concluded al-Qaida has rebuilt its operating capability to a level not seen since just before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, The Associated Press has learned.

The conclusion suggests that the network that launched the most devastating terror attack on the United States has been able to regroup along the Afghan-Pakistani border despite nearly six years of bombings, war and other tactics aimed at crippling it.

Still, numerous government officials say they know of no specific, credible threat of a new attack on U.S. soil.

A counterterrorism official familiar with a five-page summary of the new government threat assessment called it a stark appraisal to be discussed at the White House on Thursday as part of a broader meeting on an upcoming National Intelligence Estimate.

The official and others spoke on condition of anonymity because the secret report remains classified.

Two observations:

1. If this report is true, then this is horrible news for America (which means it's good news for Democrats).

2. This story is based on an anonymous source leaking classified material pertaining to national security, which is a crime. Therefore, I am just sure this will attract the same level of outrage, if not higher, among the left that they had when a non-covert pencil pushing desk jockey's name was given to Richard Armitage, right? For those of you on the left, the prior sentence was sarcasm.

President Bush and his pro-amnesty allies both in and out of Congress suffered a devastating defeat at the hands of the American people. Like any other public controversy, there are vested interests served on both sides of the amnesty issue, but I'd like to raise some ordinary non-rocket-science questions to the pro-amnesty crowd, many of whom are my libertarian friends.

Do people, anywhere in the world, have a right to enter the United States irrespective of our laws pertaining to immigration? Unless one wishes to obfuscate, there's a simple "yes" or "no" answer to that question. If a "yes" answer is given, then why should there be any immigration requirements, such as visas, passports and green cards, for anyone who wishes to visit or reside in our country? Why not abolish the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services?

If your answer is "no," one does not have a right to enter the U.S. irrespective of our laws, what does that make a person who does so? Most often we call a person whose behavior violates a law a criminal. If people commit criminal acts, should there be an effort to apprehend and punish them? In general, my answer is yes, with one important exception.

I was summoned for jury duty some years ago, and during voir dire, the attorney asked me whether I could obey the judge's instructions. I answered, "It all depends upon what those instructions are." Irritatingly, the judge asked me to explain myself. I explained that if I were on a jury back in the 1850s, and a person was on trial for violating the Fugitive Slave Act by assisting a runaway slave, I would vote for acquittal regardless of the judge's instructions. The reason is that slavery is unjust and any law supporting it is unjust. Needless to say, I was dismissed from jury duty. While our immigration laws are overly cumbersome and in urgent need of streamlining, they do not violate human rights and should be obeyed.

Many pro-amnesty supporters offer the canard that there are 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants in our country. We cannot keep every illegal immigrant out or expel the ones living here. That might be true, but it is also true that we can't prevent every rape and murder. Does that mean we shouldn't attempt to enforce the laws against rape and murder and try to prosecute the perpetrators?

In addition to greater efforts to secure our borders, there are several non-rocket-science steps we can take. People who are here illegally should be denied access to any social service such as Medicaid, public education and food assistance programs. An exception might be made for temporary emergency medical treatment. In some cities, such as Los Angeles, police are prohibited from asking people they stop about their immigration status. While state and local police shouldn't be turned into federal agents, they shouldn't knowingly conceal criminal acts.

The United States is a nation of immigrants from all over the world. The resulting ethnic mosaic goes a long way toward explaining our greatness as a nation. Immigration has always been a blessing for us, and it still is. But yesteryear's immigration and today's differ in several important respects. For the most part, yesteryear's immigrants came here legally. Because there was no welfare state, we were guaranteed that they'd work as opposed to living off the rest of us. Furthermore, they sought to assimilate and adopt our culture and become Americans. That's not so true today, where Hispanic activists seek to impose their language and culture on the rest of us. At some public schools, they've raised the Mexico flag atop the U.S. flag. They've announced that they seek to take back parts of the U.S. that were formerly Mexico.

It's a simple "yes" or "no" question: Do people have the right to come into America in violation of our immigration laws? The vast, overwhelming majority of Americans say "No"!

this 22 year old guy walked up to him and asked him if he lived in the house. When Jon said yes, the guy said “not any more” and shot him point blank in the chest. He tried to shoot him again, but his gun jammed. Jonathan made it into the house. The guy then shot himself. Turns out the guy left a couple of suicide notes stating how much he hated the military and he wanted to go out making a statement, so he chose to make his statement on Independence Day trying to kill a soldier.

The most the MSM will say is that he was "angry at the government." Angry in what way? They're not telling. They know, but they've decided the public doesn't need to know such trifling details.

If Airman Schrieken had been an abortionist or homosexual, this story would be front page news for the New York Times and the lead story on CBS News with Katie Couric for at least the next month. But since Schrieken is serving in the military, even his hometown newspaper, the Columbus Dispatch, has ignored this story. Predictably, a law enforcement spokesman says that Marren’s suicide notes “were indicative of an individual suffering from mental-health problems”, but that raises the question of how anyone could identify anyone suffering from mental-health problems amidst those devoted to bizarre conspiracy theories and the virulent anti-Americanism of the antiwar movement. If anything, Marren would have fit right in unnoticed.

It is also worth noting that Marren was merely following the logic of the anti-war movement’s standard public rhetoric. Their language is laced with suggestive undertones justifying attacks against our military, calling our armed forces fighting the War on Terror “baby-killers”, constantly invoking the specter of Abu Ghraib, and citing their grossly inflated statistics of civilians accidentally killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Such reckless and unbalanced rhetoric (they’re not quite as adept at keeping statistics on those murdered by terrorists) fuels the hatred that drives someone like Marren to violence against a member of our own military.

...Racist "Code Words:" The media is ever eager to read the supposed "subtext" of "racist code words" such as "welfare queens" and the like.

Funny that they completely miss not-at-all-subtextual messages like this:... and apparently don't ever worry that such hate speech might actually impel some of the less reality-based members of the Reality-Based Community to commit acts of violence.

If a Republican opposes amnesty, he's sending messages that it's okay to beat and kill illegal immigrants. When the left openly calls for murder, the MSM just doesn't seem capable of reading not the subtext but the actual text of their messages. ...

Just so you know: Talk radio (aka "hate radio", to the left) is directly responsible for wingnuts like the Unabomber and Timothy Macveigh, but the anti-war rhetoric of moonbats is in NO WAY responsible for acts of violence like this. Got it?

About Me

I am not conservative or Republican. I am a "neo-libertarian." It’s more logically consistent than conservatism and liberalism.
Liberals are not evil; however, their ideology has proven to be a demonstrable failure and incredibly harmful when administered on the body politic.
I have lived in the South all of my life. While I'd love to travel, I don't want to live anywhere else. Though I currently live near Jacksonville, FL, I call Memphis home (lived there most of my life). I'm a Florida State University Seminole, through and through.
All viewpoints are welcome on my blog. However, if I ban you or edit/delete your comments, it's because I found you to be offensive, repulsive, or otherwise useless. My world, my rules. Deal with it, or beat it.
Finally, I had a happy childhood, so my worldview has NOT been "warped" by a lousy upbringing. Quite the contrary: I have been blessed, and my outlook has been molded accordingly. I won't apologize for having grown up in a loving, middle-class family.